Wednesday, 23 March 2011

Yeast beasts is action

First of all I would like to note that I was at a different lab group for this lab. My partners were Brady and Liam. In this lab we tested to find out what different effect pH levels would have on a reaction (specifically yeast and hydrogen peroxide). To do this we tested the reaction in a base (Antacid) a acid (Soda) and a neutral substance (water).

Acid reaction
In this reaction (pictured at the left) we used soda. As you can see by the huge drop in the beginning, we did not know we needed to hold the cap to prevent it from flying off. Luckily, we got it back on, and I held it on for the remainder of the experiments. This reaction was the greatest, with an end pressure of about 156.

Neutral reaction
For this reaction we used water. I'm not going to lie, this one was not very event full. The pressure went up a little, but not much. The end pressure for this reaction was about 106.

Base reaction
For this reaction we used Antacid. I will admit I made a mistake on this part of the lab. I accidentally click on the wrong button and started a new lab instead of clicking the collect button. As a result of that we had to redo this part. In the end it was the second biggest reaction, raising pressure to about 146.

- These are my diagrams from the lab. They are labeled according to what they are.

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Conservation of mass investigation

In this lab we looked into how all mass is recycled and how mass cannot be destroyed merely change in form. This was demonstrated in both parts of the experiment we preformed today.
For this lab my hypothesis was "If we use baking soda and vinegar, it will produce more gas then if we use pop rocks and soda". For the first part of the experiment, we set up by putting the pop rocks in side of a balloon and putting the balloon over a bottle of soda (coke). We then let the pop rocks fall in to the soda, and watched the results. The pop rocks fizzled as they dissolved into the soda, and released CO2 which filled the balloon (somewhat). The CO2 barely managed to inflate the balloon a small bit.

-This is a diagram of what the first balloon looked like after it was filled with the gas produced by the pop rocks and soda.

For the second experiment we measured out fifty mLs of vinegar into an empty bottle of soda. We then filled another balloon with baking soda. After we had put the second balloon over the soda bottle filed with vinegar, we tipped the baking soda in. This time the reaction happened much faster, and released much more CO2. It was just like I had said in my hypothesis, the baking soda mixture released more CO2, and filled the balloon much more efficiently. I made this educated guess based on the knowledge that teachers would most likely not use baking soda and vinegar for volcanoes, if it did not work better than pop rocks and soda.

- This is a picture of the two balloons side by side. The one on the right is from the second experiment (Vinegar and baking soda). The one on the left is from the first experiment (pop rocks and soda). As you can see there is a great difference between the amount of CO2 released in the two experiments.

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Chemical Reactions Lab Investigation

In this lab we tested out a chemical reaction. My hypothesis stated that when the chemical reactions occurred, the colder the water got the longer they would go on for. We had three separate tests. The first test was conducted with the water at 50 degrees Celsius, the second test was conducted at room temperature, and the third test was conducted after Ice had been dropped into the water, and it had cooled to -1 degrees celsius. For each of the tests we dropped a pelt of alka-selzer into the water.

-Hot test

For the first test we heated the water on a hot plate, until it was 50 degrees celsius. Then I used the tongs to pick up the heated beaker of water, and put it on the stand. We then proceeded to drop a pelt of alka-selzer into the hot water. The alka-selzer reacted with the water causing it to fizzle as the pelt dissolved. The reaction went on for a short 21 seconds.

-Room temperature test

For this test we emptied the beaker of water and refiled it with room temperature water. This water was about 21 degrees celsius. Once the alka-selzer pelt was dropped into the water, it began to fizzle once more.

-Cold test

-Picture of our cold reaction. You can see the ice in the cup is partially obsucred by bubbles produced by the reaction.

Friday, 11 March 2011

1. Recants
2. Products
3. Chemical reaction
4. Rearrangement
5. Breaking, forming
6. Same atoms
7. Missing, new atoms
8. Rearrange the bonds
9. 2, 2. 1, 1.
10. 2, 1
11. Law of conservative mass
12. Atoms, Mass
13. 2, 2, 2
14. Cu atoms 1, O atoms 2, Cu atoms 2, O atoms 2
15.To balance this equation, we have to add Cu molecules to the products, because this reaction doesn’t make lone Cu atoms.
16.When we added a molecule of CuO, now the number of OXYGEN atoms is balanced but the number of Cu atoms don’t match. Now we have to add more Cu atoms to the reactants.
17. 2 Cu + 2 O2 ----> 2 CuO
18. 1 Ch4 + 2 O2 ----> 2 H2O + 1 CO2
19. 1 N2 + 3 H2 ------> 2 NH3
20. 2 KClO3 = 2 KCl + 3 O2
21. 4 Al + 3 O2 = 2 Al2O3

Chemical reactions always involve: breaking bonds, making bonds, or both.

The Law of Conservation of Mass says that the same atoms must be: There must be the same amount of present before and after the reaction.

coefficients; atoms

Wednesday, 9 March 2011

Polymer lab group investigation

Our original hypothesis was "If we use a stronger type of glue, and more borax, then the solution that we create will be stronger and it will have a higher rebound factor." The problem we were trying to solve was "how can we make a sturdier polymer using materials similar to the ones used in Tuesday’s lab? (Glue and two teaspoons of borax.)" The materials that we used in this lab were only slightly different from the first polymer we did. We used Tilebond Wood Glue™, water, a stirring rod, one 500 mL beaker, a 250 mL beaker, a graduated cylinder, and borax. The results were mixed. The polymer we made without extra borax was much stretchier, and less stickier. At one point we were able to stretch the solution to be 15 feet long! The first polymer snapped at one foot. One other difference between the two polymer is that the first polymer had a much higher rebound (14cm) then the wood glue polymer (6cm). When we froze the wood glue polymer it had a slightly higher rebound (9cm) but the increase was very small. After we were done testing that polymer we created a new one. For this one we use wood glue again but doubled the amount of borax in the solution. The results were catastrophic.

Our second solution of the day-

The result of adding more borax was a wet slimy, sticky substance that uzzed unbonded glue. It was pretty disgusting and we were unable to test it for anything, so we just through it away. Aside from that I think that we had a very productive lab, and I learned a lot.

Thursday, 3 March 2011

Lab investigation:Polymers

In this lab we had a chance to test out the rebound capabilities of a polymer that we would create. When going through the procedures of the lab, I do not believe my group strayed from the instructions apart from putting about one mL extra of sodium silicate polymer into the mix, which I don't believe did anything to our solution. Original I had thought that the final polymer would be a lot different then what it actual turned out to be. To put it in my own words: "If we follow the procedures, the final product will be a moldable rubbery slimy substance, rather like the previous lab"-Jacob R. Hann 2011 I was not correct with my entire description but I was correct in my thinking that the final product would be rather rubbery. If I had to describe what the final polymer turned out to be I would call it a rubber like substance that was moldable, but that would still break apart rather easily.
Here are a few pictures of our polymer:

These two pictures are of our polymer after it had been molded into a sphere.

This last picture is of our polymer while it was still in the beaker. The reaction is already beginning to take place even thought the liquids were just pored together.

The polymer that we constructed today was quite different than the one we created on tuesday. First of all the one we created today with the sodium silicate was not wet, and broke apart easier than the last one. It was also much harder to mold. More of a solid, less of a liquid. In this lab we used silicon to create our polymer where as most polymers are made using carbon. We were able to use silicon because it shares so many properties with carbon, it's even right next to carbon on the periodic table. Our polymer was also quite similar to a plastic, of course it seemed much more similar to a rubber, but I will point out the similarities anyway. First of all, plastic is also hard, but breakable (our polymer was much more moldable than plastic). Also the textures are very much alike. I knew that a chemical reaction had happened as soon as the two liquids were stirred together. This knew, because they immediately began to dry up and to leave, in there place, a hard plastic-like substance. This was very interesting to watch because it happened so fast.

In the previous experiment, we had made a different polymer ball, that one was made of elmer's glue, and borax. We tested both balls in the same way, one test dropping the ball 5 times from 30 cm in the air and measuring how high it bounced, and a second test which involved going through the exact same procedure after putting the ball in refrigerator for 15 minutes. The results were quite interesting. On the first ball, test #1 yielded an average rebound of 9 cm, the second test however yielded an increased average rebound of 15 cm. On the second ball, the first test yielded an average rebound of 20 cm
and the second test yielded a decreased average rebound of 18 cm. This shows the difference between the two polymers and how not all polymers react to temperature the same. My group also asked around some of the other groups to find out how their polymers reacted to the change in temperature. It turns out that their polymers reacted almost exactly like our, with some small differences.

Wednesday, 2 March 2011

The science of addiction

Drugs have a severe impact on the brain and body of the user. Even mild substances like alcohol can have major effects on a human body over time. The aging process can be speed up by the use of drugs, which can bring with it increased chances of life threatening diseases such as cancer. Now you might think that this isn't so bad, that it would be easy to give up drugs, that one little try won't hurt. Anyone who thinks that is, sadly wrong. Addiction is a powerful force. You see the brain has a natural reward system, when you eat or drink you experience a relative high, and are compelled to do so again. This is caused by neurotransmitters which are natural parts of the brain. Drugs stimulate these neurotransmitters into producing an unnatural high. This process induces addiction. Once you've had a taste of the extreme highs cause by drugs such as Cocaine or Marijuana, it is difficult to go back to the natural highs induced by everyday life. Many of these drugs not only cause a dependency, they also have other negative effects on the body such as decreases in brain activity, and dulling of reflexes. All in all it is best to stay away from drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. Weather they're legal or illegal, they all have negative effects on the body and mind of the people who use them.